D 5325 
M63 
920 
175 
lopy 2 



A LABOR CASE WITH MERIT" 



mt 



matte. 



E3TABLJSRi:r 



i" J0S2PH PULITZEP. 
t iter by Too I 
l Park Row. Ntr» York. 
RALPH PJeTTTZER, President, 63 Park Row 



•nniltfltloni to THE WOBLn. TVUTiX* j 



SCX DAT, JUXF i 



.ere can be 

.can voters. 

be settled at 

jsa.- Just what 

ambiguity or 

decided if prin- 

skerf and hidden. 

Ion Is true to the 

>emocratic Party 

culty m nuking 

d ways of fram- 

at means trliat 

soul it at San 

offer* a plank 

lakable terms: 

he treaty 

the League 

aggression, 

r.g lumterf 
W Unltk 
'•rlfy the 



A LABOR CASE WITH MERIT. 
For the anthracite-coal miners of Pennsylvania 
! whose deters are now under consideration by a 
| special commission recently appointed by the 
: President It most be eald that they come Into 
; court with clean hands. They have engaged In no 
1 st; ike, lawful or unlawful. They refer with- pride 
I to the fact that they have worked loyally under 
I trying conditions 'and that they have recognized 
! their duty to thepubllc no less than to themselves. 
: being confident that on an Impartial, hearing jus- 
, tlce would be done. 

j \Vith this attitude in mind, most people will be 
: astonished to learn that .wages for the best-paid 
| men have not exceeded (100 a month and that 
what Is asked n£w Is $6 a day as a minimum for 
adult workers^ ah increase- of 31 per cent on all 
contract rate*£''4fee standardization of the eight- 
hour day .and the formal recognition of the United 
Mine- Workers of America. To&teg Into account 
the prevailing pay of labor irr many other lines, 
the demands of this basic industry appear to be 
as modest ae the lone of its representatives ia 
conciliatory. 

If all the conditions are as stated, it ou-ht not 
to require a protracted session of the commi*- 
slon to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to «ie 
miners, in almost any other field employers ao 
powerful and prosperous as the anthracite opera- 
tors would have met such an' Issue as this fairly 
and squarely, without compelling the Government 
to take a band In Its settlement. 



hpicture pr. 

I tic. But tb 
ranees reve. 
tions of m< 
says, "woul. 
elist for a 
pay to Amerl 
not have to 
pictures; on ' 
engage extra p 

What the ca, 
scenarios Is, In 

"improving procfa 
must undergo to 
duction. Mr. Shi 
ethics of the legit, 
knows nothing al 
for throwing the e 
on the victim or ff 
vase. It Is dou* 
slap-stick situate 

In all these n 
veteran piaywrl 
construction a 
the modern s' 
of dramatic 
the ecreen 



"I >,ruTEB 1» 



MUST GO>:- 



Published by 
THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 

1920 



<?<! 



A Labor Case With Merit' 



EDITORIAL COMMENT 



OiN THE CASE OF THE 



Anthracite Mine Workers 



BEFORE THE 

ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION 



C&fvU' 



o^ 






& 



DEC 



•f »• 

19 1920 



■A 

a 

EDITORIAL COMMENTS 



(New York World, June 27, 1920.) 

A LABOR CASE WITH MERIT. 

For the anthracite coal miners of Pennsylvania 
whose claims are now under consideration by a special 
commission recently appointed by the President it 
must be said that they come into court with clean 
hands. They have engaged in no strike, lawful or 
unlawful. They refer with pride to the fact that they 
have worked loyally under trying conditions and that 
they have recognized their duty to the public no less 
than to themselves, being confident that on an impar- 
tial hearing justice would be done. 

With this attitude in mind, most people will be 
astonished to learn that wages for the best paid men 
have not exceeded $100 a month and that what is 
asked now is $6 a day as a minimum for adult work- 
ers, an increase of 31 per cent on all contract rates, 
the standardization of the eight-hour day and the 
formal recognition of the United Mine Workers of 
America. Taking into account the prevailing pay of 
labor in many other lines, the demands of this basic 
industry appear to be as modest as the tone of its 
representatives is conciliatory. 



If all the conditions are as stated, it ought not to 
require a protracted session of the commission to 
arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to the miners. In 
almost any other field employers so powerful and pros- 
perous as the anthracite operators would have met 
such an issue as this fairly and squarely, without com- 
pelling the Government to take a hand in its settle- 
ment:. 

(Scraaton Times, Scranton, Pa., June 28, 1920.) 

THE CHARGE OF PROFITEERING LAID 

AGAINST OUR BIG MINING 

COMPANIES. 

With the resumption today of hearings calculated 
to guide it in adjusting the wage demands by the an- 
thracite mine workers, the commission appointed by 
the President was presented with the rather amazing 
statement that the anthracite operators are conscience- 
less profiteers. That is the only conclusion that can 
be arrived at upon the basis of the declaration of an 
economist who, appearing before the commission as 
a witness for the mine workers, stated that profiteer- 
ing to the extent of 500 per cent increases for the 
1916-1918 period as compared with the 1912-1914 or 
pre-war period, has been indulged in. 

The Philadelphia and Reading company, one of the 
largest of the anthracite mining corporations, is specif- 
ically charged with being a 500 per cent profiteer. 

6 



The witness, who is W. Jett Lauck, former secre- 
tary of the War Labor Board, says : 

"A survey of the anthracite industry shows an in- 
crease in net profits of the principal operators for the 
period 1916-1918 over 1912-1914 of nearly 90 per 
cent as compared with an increase in production dur- 
ing this period of less than 12 per cent. For the year 
1 91 9 the available figures show for two representative 
companies an increase in net profits over 1918 of 18 
per cent. The figures quoted are exclusive of the 
profits of the separately incorporated selling compa- 
nies through which certain of the principal operators 
market their product. These companies, since their 
organization, have paid annual dividends ranging from 
20 per cent to 30 per cent. 

"In the case of seven representative mining com- 
panies there was an increase in net profits during the 
period 1916-1918 over 1912-1914 of 69.7 per cent. 
Expressed in terms of dollars the total net income of 
these companies advanced from an aggregate of $29,- 
354,989 for the period 1912-1914 to $55,528,849 for 
the period 1916-1918, an increase of $26,173,869, or 
89.2 per cent. In other words, their average annual 
profits during the'war were nearly double their yearly 
profits for the pre-war period, though their total pro- 
duction increased only 11.6 per cent. The net income 
earned by these companies on their capital stock out- 
standing during the period 1916-1918 ranged from 
20.4 per cent to 36.6 per cent, as compared with a net 
income in 1912-1914 ranging from 12 per cent to 18.9 
per cent. Their combined aggregate output during 
the seven years ending December 31, 191 8, it should 
be noted, was approximately 325,000,000 tons, or about 
56 per cent of all tonnage produced during that period." 



The making" of a fair or substantial profit in coal 
is not reprehensible. Excessive profits constitute a 
different proposition. Coal is not like other commodi- 
ties ; it is a necessity, and the mining corporation is a 
public utilities concern. 

It is presumed that the mine workers will present 
evidence to support in detail the sensational accusa- 
tions presented by Mr. Lauck. The public would like 
to know all about them; it is the first time since the 
Anthracite Strike Commission of 1902 that there has 
been a going into of the operations of the large mining 
corporations.' This inquiry will do good in giving the 
country an idea of whether or not it has been milked 
by unreasonable prices for coal. 

If the anthracite mining industry has been making 
the enormous profits asserted, it is important to know 
it. If they have, operators can sell coal at less than 
they have been selling it, which will benefit consum- 
ers and manufacturers; they can afford to pay higher 
wages to the mine workers, and they can afford to 
voluntarily tax themselves to protect the surface 
against the mine caves that bedevil the surface dwell- 
ers of this and adjacent communities. 

The commission before whom the case of the mine 
workers for higher wages is being heard is comprised 
of one operator and one mine worker. These will, 
naturally, lean to their respective sides ; it is human. 
The third man representing the public is a disinter- 
ested party, the president of a college. The latter may 

8 



be expected to wield, therefore, not only a decisive 
influence in any decision as to wages, but a power in 
determining the scope of the investigation. 

The investigation or submission of all the facts is 
necessary for a just conclusion as to the wage de- 
mands. It will, this inquiry and arbitration, as a 
result, serve the general public, provided the commis- 
sion makes up its mind to go into the relations of the 
mining corporations and their employees to the fullest 
extent. The charges of enormous profiteering, in jus- 
tice to the public and in justice to the corporations, 
should be run down. 

The public will have to pay the whole wage increase, 
in all probability, and it has the right, consequently, 
to be looked upon as a party to the arbitration. If, 
however, the mining corporations are found to have 
been profiteers they should be made to bear the full 
cost of the wage advance, and the public acquainted 
with the facts. The public will be fair until it gets 
both sides of the story, but it should by all means get 
both sides. The commission can see that it does. 



(New York World, June 29, 1920.) 

PROFITS OF THE COAL OPERATORS. 

Charges of unconscionable profiteering in the hard 
coal industry are now being made to the Anthracite 
Coal Commission, which is trying to adjust a wage 

9 



dispute and avert a calamitous strike. They come 
from W. Jett Lauck, who figures as consulting econo- 
mist for the United Mine Workers. They represent 
in a general way that net profits for the leading oper- 
ators have just about doubled over what they were 
before the war. It is further made apparent that the 
great aggravating cause of the present crisis has been 
the failure of the operators in fair measure to share 
the fruits of their inordinate profiteering with the 
miners. 

These are not new charges. They do not rest on 
the authority of Mr. Lauck alone. They were publicly 
made by ex-Secretary William G. McAdoo some 
months ago, who said he could appeal to the income 
tax returns for the proof. They were repeated by 
Mr. McAdoo's successor as Secretary of the Treasury, 
Carter Glass. 

Now the opportunity is present to have these 
charges sifted to the bottom and the facts made pub- 
lic. They are extremely pertinent to the matter in 
the hands of the Anthracite Coal Commission, and 
that body has the power to get at them. An unduly 
exploited public wants to know the extent of the ex- 
ploitation and whether it is going to continue as a 
joint labor-and-capital operation or whether it is going 
to end altogether. 



Evening News, Newark, N. J., June 29,. 1920.) 

COAL PROFITS AND COAL WAGES. 

W. Jett Lauck, who formerly was secretary of the 
War Labor Board, in urging wage increases Monday 
before the Anthracite Coal Commission, gave prom- 
inence to the profits made by the anthracite operators 
in the period 1916-1918 as compared with the period 
1912-1914. The industry as a whole, he said, showed 
a gain in profits of nearly 90 per cent, whereas output 
gained less than 12 per cent. The implication is that 
the operators had been profiteering. 

As to the limits of a fair rate of return upon coal 
mining it is not now necessary to give judgment. Mr. 
Lauck finds the rate taken by the operators during the 
later period to have ranged between 20.4 per cent and 
36.6 per cent on outstanding capital stock, as against 
the rate of from 14.2 to 18.9 per cent in the earlier 
period. 

What impresses the thoughtful reader in weighing 
these statements is that the increases in profits and 
in rate of return correspond roughly to, or fall short 
of, the shrunken purchasing power of the dollar. 
Whether the receiver of an income be a person or 
corporation, a miner or a coal operator, there is only 
one standard for measuring it — its purchasing power. 
If the coal companies have doubled their incomes in 
dollars, then those incomes have stood still or fallen 
somewhat behind, because each dollar of those incomes 

11 



buys today less than half what it did at the time with 
which the present is compared. 

Mr. Lauck, whether considering railroad labor or 
mining labor, is an advocate of the view that wages 
ought to be raised approximately high enough to meet 
the cost of living — in other words, high enough to give 
present wages not less than equal purchasing power 
with past wages. He might well hold consistently to 
this view in dealing with company profits, which are 
just as much incomes as wages are. Dividends are 
incomes of individual stockholders. Why should not 
stockholders' incomes rise with the cost of living to 
the same extent as miners' incomes? As a matter of 
economic argument there is no distinction between the 
two sorts of incomes. 

Any corporation that does business today must use 
twice as mam dollars to run its business, because each 
of its dollars has but half the purchasing power before 
the war. Any corporation that has doubled its dollar 
income, or doubled its return on capital, is hardly 
keeping its head above the rising tide of costs. If 
profits are excessive now, then they were even more 
excessive before the war. The nominal increase actu- 
ally is illusory. The operators, on Mr. Lauck's show- 
ing, are a little worse oft than they were before they 
began their alleged practice of profiteering. 

It is largely because a fixed rate of return has meant 
a halved income that bonds have been depressed in 



price as compared with stocks. If a corporation 
makes large earnings, stockholders may benefit by 
increased dividends and so maintain their incomes 
without substantial impairment of purchasing power. 
But bonds, carrying a fixed interest, yield less and less 
in actual income as the dollar shrinks in buying value. 
With particular reference to the hard coal operators, 
the point of the argument is that they have succeeded 
in doing, according to Mr. Lauck, exactly what he 
wants to have done for his own clients— double their 
income as the dollar was halved in purchasing power. 
Whether or not this is profiteering, it might ,at least 
be said that the coal companies do not seem to have 
tried to be helpful in keeping down the H. C. L., as 
some other businesses have done. 



(The Republican, Springfield, Mass., June 29, 1920.) 

MR. LAUCK ON PROFITEERING. 

The wide discrepancy in many cases between the 
profits reports of some large corporations and the 
figures of Federal and other investigators has been 
bewildering. Nobody in business admits profiteering 
and only in a comparatively few conspicuous instances 
has the Department of Justice made the charge form- 
ally with the evidence supporting it. Yet the figures 
are down in the books in accordance with efficient 
bookkeeping systems and the books are available for 

13 



public information — with a court order, if necessary. 
Is it not possible so to standardize accounting that the 
true inwardness of the situation will appear without 
camouflage? Or is there a deliberately adopted sys- 
tem of "hidden profits" that baffles all but those who 
profit by it ? 

These reflections are prompted by a detailed state- 
ment written by W. Jett Lauck, a widely experienced 
statistician and economist, on corporation earnings 
and profits in the three years, 1916-18. In that time, 
he says, the net profits of the corporations of the 
country, were approximately $4,800,000,000 more a 
year than in the three years preceding the war, $2,000,- 
000,000 of the excess being in the iron and steel and 
coal industries. What this means is made clearer by 
a few items. Two thousand and thirty corporations 
made over 100 per cent net profit; 5734 made more 
than 50 per cent, and 20,000 from 20 to 30 per cent. 
Manufacturers' war time profits in gray sheeting were 
748 per cent of pre-war profits, while the retailers'" 
increase of profits in the same commodity was 464 
per cent; manufacturers' profits in blue denim, of 
which overalls are made, increased 650 per cent. The 
"most conservative" estimate of the net gains of the 
sugar profiteers this year is in excess of $600,000,000. 

More details of a similar sort were given by Mr. 
Lauck in his statement recently before the Anthracite 
Coal Commission. An increase in net profits of the 



principal operators of nearly 90 per cent in the three 
years, compared with an increase in production of less 
than 12 per cent during the same period, as he figures 
it, is fairly high; but the statistician declares that the 
actual increase in net profits of one company, the 
Philadelphia and Reading, "which had no selling de- 
vice for concealing its profits," was nearly 500 per 
cent and its profits per ton of output 435 per cent, 
while the company's increase in production was only 
11 per cent. 

Mr. Lauck, who was formerly secretary of the War 
Labor Board, is now employed by the United Mine 
Workers of America as consulting economist, but he 
has held similar positions with both the United 
States and Canadian Governments, before arbitration 
boards and with private commercial enterprises. His 
figures are challenging. What is the matter with 
them? In general, it can only be said in defense of 
the profits revealed that the war-time necessity for 
stimulating coal production in high-cost mines so as 
to increase total output enabled low-cost mines to cash 
in enormously when the Government agencies fixed 
prices at higher levels. 



15 



(Journal, Syracuse, N. Y.) 

GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? 

The American people have a right to know, and to 
be informed promptly, whether they have been and 
are now being imposed upon by the anthracite coal 
operators. 

A charge to this effect has been made several times 
since the signing of the armistice. It is now presented 
to the Anthracite Coal Commission by W. Jett Lauck, 
consulting economist for the United Mine Workers. 
Inasmuch as the commission is inquiring into the ques- 
tion of wages and hours, it should not complete its 
settlement of the grave dispute without determining 
what measure of truth there is in what Lauck now 
says and what William G. McAdoo said he discovered 
to be the fact while studying income tax returns as 
Secretary of the Treasury. 

This question is not one of increased business or 
increased cosl: of operation. It is simply one of net 
profit. Lauck says the net incomes of the operators 
are just about double what they were before the war. 

The difference between the old prices at the mines 
and the present ones in dollars and cents has not gone 
to the miners. The consumers have not enjoyed any 
benefits. On the face of things the finger of suspicion 
points to the operators. 



16 



(The Buffalo Express, Buffalo, New York, June 29, 1920.) 

W. Jett Lauck, a former member of the War Labor 
Board, quoted figures to the anthracite commission 
which purports to prove that the hard coal industry 
is a monopoly and that profits have increased un- 
duly since 19 14. This statement recently has come 
from so many different persons that it needs official 



Citizen, Brooklyn, New York, June 29, 1920.) 

Mr. Lauck, former secretary of the War Labor 
Board, charges certain anthracite coal combinations 
with profiteering on a large and intolerable scale. 
Unless Mr. Lauck's figures can be shown to be wildly 
at variance with the truth, several of the chief oper- 
ators ought to be sent to the penitentiary for a long 
period of years. 



Traveler, Boston, Mass., June 30, 1920.) 

ANTHRACITE MEN STILL HOLD BARON 
ATTITUDE. 

Anthracite operators are squirming vigorously at 
the thought that their profits should be investigated 
by the Anthracite Coal Commission now studying the 
question of mine workers' wages. The mine owners 
claim it is preposterous to suppose there is any con- 



nection between wages on the one hand and charges 
of profiteering and monopoly on the other. 

The anthracite interests are utterly wrong in this 
contention. There are three parties interested in the 
subject of wages — the miners, the mine owners and 
the public. The same three parties are also interested 
in the question of profits made by the coal producer- 
The problem cannot be separated into two parts, each 
to be solved without reference to the other. This fact 
becomes clear when we consider the rights of the three 
parties. The public is entitled to obtain coal at the 
lawest price consistent with efficient operation. The 
mine owners are entitled to a fair return upon their 
investment of capital, brains and energy. The wage 
earners are entitled to a living wage, and to the knowl- 
edge that their services are not being exploited to 
fatten bank accounts of employers who may have 
taken advantage of unusual opportunities to rob the 
public. 

It is high time the coal operators were compelled to 
lay all their cards on the table and submit to a fair 
adjustment of the whole question of wages, profits 
and trade practices. They greatly increase the pre- 
sumption against them in the public mind and in the 
minds of their employees as ell by trying to with- 
hold pertinent facts from the mine commission. 



(Public Ledger, Philadelphia, Pa., June 30, 1920.) 

PROFITEERS IN ANTHRACITE. 

Just why the representative of the anthracite oper- 
ators before the Anthracite Coal Commission at 
Scranton should object to the introduction of evidence 
as to the profits of the mining companies will not be 
altogether clear to those who imagine that it is the. 
function of the commission to fix the wage scale of 
the miners upon a basis which bears a fair relation to 
the costs of production. To assume, as would appear 
to have been the contention of Mr. Warriner, that the 
commission could only concern itself with such simple 
questions as to the cost of living and what constitutes 
a living wage for the mine workers would be to narrow 
the inquiry beyond all reason and to leave out of con- 
sideration the third party to the controversy which the 
commission was called into existence to settle. 

Surely the public has some rights which operators 
and miners are bound to respect ; and the profits of the 
operators bear quite as directly upon the price of coal 
to the consumers as upon the ability of the operators to 
pay more wages to the miners. Perhaps it is true that 
the consumers and the price of coal were not specified 
in the agreement to refer the wage dispute to the com- 
mission, but they can no more be excluded as deter- 
mining factors in the question at issue than could the 
specific items in the formal demands of the miners. 
If it be true that the operators' profits have reached 

19 



anything like the percentages set forth in the statement 
of the consulting economist and statistician of the 
miners' union, then the facts ought to be made known 
to the public, to the end that the consumers may for 
once be protected. If these enormous profits have 
been made oiu of the anthracite industry, then there 
is absolutely no justification for the present prices, and 
certainly no justification for another advance on top 
of that already made in anticipation of the pending 
wa^e increase. 



Advertiser, Boston, Mass.. July 1. 1920.1 

BLAME BANKERS FOR HIGH COST OF 
HARD COAL. 

Here's why hard coal is costing S14.50 a ton in Bos- 
ton and New England, according to \Y. Jett Lauck. 
consulting economist of the miners, before the An- 
thracite Coal Commission's hearings held today in 
Scranton. Pa. 

Seven railroad systems controlled by J. P. Morgan 
<5c Co. and a Wall street banking combine own 96 per 
cent of the unmined coal of the country. 

Control Coal Market. 

They mine anthracite through separately incorpor- 
ated coal companies which the railroad systems own 

.20 



and control. They also say how much coal shall be 
put on the market. 

The banker.' raised transportation rates on the rail- 
roads so high the coal companies operated at a loss. 
These losses were assumed by the railroads, paid for 
in capital and bonds, and charged into transportation 
rates by the railroads. 

Excessive transportation costs combined with coal 
company losses gave the railroads excuses for high 
rates and low wages. 

At the same time coal company losses charged into 
the cost of transportation justified high traffic rates. 

The Consumer Suffers. 

These high traffic rates, juggled into the cost of 
anthracite to the local dealer, justified high prices to 
the consumer 

Here's how the coal profiteers "got away with it" and 
the money they made, according to Mr. Lauck, for- 
merly secretary of the War Labor Board : 

From 191 4 to 19 16 these seven mining companies 
increased their net profits 69.7 per cent. 

From net profits of $29,354,989 in 1912-1914, these 
companies increased their net profits to $55,528,849 
in 1916-1918. This was an increase of $26,173,860, 
or 89.2 per cent. 

During the war their profits doubled, though their 
total production increased but 11.6 per cent. 



And these profits, large as they are, represented only 
the earnings of the mining companies, exclusive of 
their separately incorporated selling companies. 

A Vicious Circle. 

The available figures for 1919 represent still largei 
profits. 

For example, the coal department of the Delaware 
& Hudson Railroad shows an increase in profits of* 
4.39 per cent. 

The Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company increased 
its profits in 1919 over 1918 by 2.5 per cent. 

In other words, the bankers who own the railroads, 
the coal mining companies and the coal selling com- 
panies reaped excess profits through juggling their 
bookkeeping systems. 

First, they milked the railroads by high traffic rates. 

Next, they raised the price of coal to the dealer and 
so to the consumer. 

At the same time they kept down the miners' wages. 

Played both ends and the middle. 

Frenzied Finance ! 



Iljrald, Boston, Mass., July 2, 1920.) 

The householder who pays $14.50 a ton for hard 
coal, basketing extra, will agree with Mr. Lauck in 
scenting inordinate profits nearer the mine than the 
bin. 

22 



(Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass., July 3, 1920.) 

COAL MINERS AND THE PUBLIC. 

It has recently been claimed, by some of its repre- 
sentatives in the United States, that the interests of 
organized labor are practically identical with those of 
a large proportion of the rest of the public, and no 
doubt a considerable percentage of the rest of the 
public is inclined to agree with them. This element 
of the population, at least, will be likely to applaud 
certain statements made the other day by Philip Mur- 
ray, vice-president of the United Mine Workers of 
America, to the Federal Anthracite Coal Commission. 
The fact that Mr. Murray's remarks were offered in 
connection with a demand that the workers in the 
Pennsylvania anthracite field be granted a minimum 
wage of $6 a day is, for the present moment, inciden- 
tal, and in any case the question of a just wage for 
these workers is properly one for the commission men- 
tioned to determine. The public, it may safely be 
assumed by the miners and everyone else who is 
interested, is ready to do its part in order that the 
men who dig out coal may be well paid for their 
arduous and necessary work. Everybody will admit 
that it costs miners and their families more to live 
now than it used to, and it is for the interest of the 
public, as well as to its liking, that the miners and their 
families should be enabled to live decently. There is 
not yet any unshakable evidence that, even though they 

23 



are freed from the handicap of drink, they are living 
on a plane higher than is approved for the American 
working man. 

The mere consumer of anthracite coal, even though 
his part in the matter seems to be only to pay his bill, 
if he can get the coal he needs, and control his tongue 
as he may be able, sometimes thinks he holds views 
of importance concerning the coal industry. But it 
seems reasonable to believe that the spokesman for the 
anthracite miners should be still better informed than 
the ultimate purchaser with regard to the conditions 
under which coal is mined and otherwise handled 
Moreover, the reputation of the American Federation 
of Labor, in which the United Mine Workers of 
America have long been an important factor, and the 
public utterances of the high officers of that aggrega- 
tion are generally such as to warrant public attention 
and to win public confidence. So that when a vice- 
president of the Federation tells a national commis- 
sion, as Mr. Murray did the other day, that "if the 
excessive profits resulting from the coal monopoly 
were eliminated and the industry conducted with a 
wholesome regard for the public welfare, a liberal 
return could be made to capital honestly invested, the 
wages of the anthracite workers could be increased 
to American living standards, and the price of coal to 
the consumer could be greatly reduced," impartial 
listeners are likely to be pleased that the Government 

24 



is getting more information of this character. Since 
figures amply sustaining such statements concerning" 
coal mining were made public by income tax returns, 
and by Mr. McAdoo as a result of knowledge gained 
while Secretary of the Treasury, the public has been 
convinced that assertions like that by Mr. Murray, 
just quoted, aie justified. 

It will, therefore, require no special credulity for 
American citizens to accept Mr. Murray's added dec- 
laration that, "under the practical operation of the 
coal monopoly since 1898, both the worker in the 
mines and the consumer of anthracite coal have been 
grievously exploited." Both the Government and the 
people will, it is to be hoped, give due weight to his 
further statement that, "until conditions have been 
turned to the public interest, there can be no perma- 
nent hope in the industry either for those who labor 
to produce coal or those who use it for domestic or 
other purposes." Nor will the public fail to note the 
Labor representative's testimony that the miners had 
remained at work since the beginning of the present 
controversy in March, preferring to suffer individual 
hardship rather than bring about general hardships 
to the public. If such is really the attitude of the men, 
they will, in the long run, lose nothing by maintaining 
it, for a brighter day for them will surely dawn. Mr. 
Murray did not make the mistake of stopping with 
general allegations, but also said to the commission: 

25 



''We can prove by official data that there is no relation 
between labor costs of mining anthracite coal and the 
exorbitant price which is being exacted from the con- 
sumer, or, in other words, that the rates of pay of 
anthracite mine workers are not the determining fac- 
tor in fixing the price of coal to the consumer." From 
the words of this spokesman of the miners it is appar- 
ent that a fair adjustment of the conditions of market- 
ing coal is one of the essentials for removing unrest 
among those who dig it out of the earth, and thus is 
an end more important to be achieved than any tem- 
porary fixing of wages. 



(Pittsburgh Dispatch, Pittsburgh, Pa., July 7, 1920.) 

EFFICIENCY IN BOOKKEEPING. 

It is improbable that we have been bestowing too 
much praise upon our national progress in mechanical 
invention and application of improved equipment, but 
conclusions that may be drawn from the statements 
of W. Jett Lauck, former statistician for the War 
Labor Board, may present the inference that we have 
failed inexcusably in complimenting American effi- 
ciency in bookkeeping. If the figures of Mr. Lauck 
are placed alongside the reports of profits by repre- 
sentative industrial and commercial enterprises, it is 
impossible to escape the suspicion that standardized 

26 



accounting methods have accomplished some phenom- 
enal feats. Records of operations are taken from 
regular, routine, respectable books, and should present 
a plain, understandable story, yet Federal investigators 
and specifically expert statisticians like Mr. Lauck find 
what may be described by the charitable term discrep- 
ancy. What Mr. Lauck discovers deserves the name 
profiteering at best and an uglier name at worst, but 
Federal records against profiteering leave no trace of 
a widespread movement to gouge the public or evade 
obligations to the Government. 

There are no profiteers among the representative 
industrial and commercial establishments of the 
United States, yet Mr. Lauck asserts that from 1916- 
191 8 2030 concerns made more than 100 per cent 
profits ; 5734 made more thari 50 per cent profit, and 
20,000 up to 30 per cent, which leaves the question 
rather wide open — what is profiteering? Incidentally 
another question intrudes — are reports to the Govern- 
ment incomprehensive except to experts like Mr. 
Lauck, or hao there been evolved out of the multitude 
of necessities born of the war a standardized system 
by which it is possible to conceal what industrial arid 
commercial concerns have done? If Mr. Lauck is able 
to check up these items of profit, why has no one else 
been able to do it ? What he publishes looks like sheer 
defiance to both Federal Government and the enter- 
prises whose profits he makes known. He should be 

• 
27 



refuted or corroborated, or there may be a suspicion 
that the Federal Government is insincere in its "war- 
fare" upon profiteering. 



(Express, Buffalo, N. Y., July 8, 1920.) 

W. Jett Lauck elaborated his charges yesterday that 
the anthracite industry is a huge monopoly oppressing 
both workers and consumers, and that its profits are 
seven times greater than they appear to be. Mr. Lauck 
seems to be sufficiently sure of his ground to warrant 
a thorough investigation in the direction he suggests. 



(Scranton Times, Seranton, Pa., July 8, 1920.) 

IS THE CONSUMING PUBLIC INTERESTED IN 
MINING PROFITS? 

The form of the interrogation above is shaped cal- 
culatingly, with the idea of drawing attention to a 
remarkable statement attributed to S. D. Warriner, 
the directing head of the Lehigh Coal and Navigation 
Co., which is one of the biggest of the anthracite min- 
ing corporations. 

The mine workers seek to introduce testimony show- 
ing the profits of the mining corporations as evidence 
of their ability to pay higher wages, without putting it 
on consumers. To this Mr. Warriner said, before the 
Presidential commission that is sitting here to deter- 

" 28 



mine how much of a wage increase shall be given the 
mine workers : 

"We (the operators) are not trying our case before 
the public. The public is not interested in these ex- 
traneous matters. This is a matter for the commis- 
sion, not a matter for spreading in the newspapers." 

Therefore, our question of whether the public is 
interested in the profits of the mining corporations. 

Mr. Warriner is wrong. The public is interested 
in the profits of the mining corporations, and the pub- 
lic, moreover, hopes that Dr. Thompson, the third 
member of the President's commission, will not be 
persuaded bv the operators to rule out as evidence 
what the mire workers want to show in this respect. 

The anthracite operators, Dr. Thompson should 
know, are among the cleverest, the daringest and most 
persuasive as well as the most amiable men in the 
corporate life of the United States. We say this with 
no disrespect to them, only so that Dr. Thompson, 
who comes from Ohio and does not know anthracite 
persons and history as the people here do, shall not 
be misled and shall get the public viewpoint, for it is 
as the representative of the PUBLIC that he serves 
on the commission. 

The Times, upon the adjournment of the commis- 
sion's sitting last week, gave good reasons why the 
profits of the operators had important relation to 
wages and the cost of coal to the consumer. We shall 
repeat them briefly. 

29 



On the first of May this year, for illustration, the 
anthracite mining corporations raised the price of coal 
at the mines $i a ton. The retailer had to pay it. Did 
the retailer make the consumer pay it ? Every con- 
sumer knows that no retail coal dealer could remain 
in business if he did not pass the increase of $i a ton 
on the consumer. That is where the public IS con- 
cerned, Mr. Warriner to the contrary. 

Mr. Warriner and his fellow-operators themselves 
declare that if the mine workers get a wage advance 
the PUBLIC will have to pay more for its coal. Is 
the public interested, or is it not, as Mr. Warriner 
endeavors to make out? 

The operators have, ALWAYS, raised the price of 
coal to the public after EVERY wage advance. That 
is recorded history in the anthracite region. 

The PUBLIC is interested, and we sincerely hope 
that Dr. Thompson will not be taken in by the oper- 
ators' plea to the contrary. For the benefit of Dr. 
Thompson let us say that the operators tacked on that 
May i increase of $i a ton ON THE GROUND OF 
INCREASED LABOR COST OF THE MINE 
WORKER and IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT 
they do not yet know how much of an increase will 
be added, through a wage advance, to the labor cost. 
They offered 15 per cent of an advance, but that 15 
per cent applied to the labor cost of a ton of coal was 
MUCH LESS THAN THE DOLLAR A TON 

30 



THEY ADDED TO THE PRICE OF COAL 
MAY i. 

How can Mr. Warriner logically insist that the 
public is not concerned? That is a ''break" on Mr. 
Warriner 's part almost, as bad as that made by the 
late George F. Baer when he came out boldly with the 
asseveration that the anthracite operators ran the mines 
by ''divine right." The PUBLIC is concerned, very 
vitally. 

The operators, very shrewdly, say, in support of 
their arguments against the admission of evidence 
tending to show their ability to pay higher wages, that 
all the commission is expected to do is to decide what 
is a living wage, the operators being willing to pay 
that. That is, after a fashion, a plausible argument, 
but it is misleading. For the moment let it be said 
that no industry that will not or can not pay a living- 
wage has the right to exist, for the industry that does 
not or can not pay such a wage is a barnacle and a 
dragger-down of the labor of the men, women and 
children in it. That kind of business is no good to a 
community or a people. 

Theoretically, the operators say they are willing to 
pay a living wage to their mine workers, and that this 
wage is to be fixed by the commission whether they 
can afford it or not. If the operators had any in- 
tention of not passing the wage increase on to the 
consumer, they would never make an argument of 

3i 



that sort. Anthracite operators do not just talk that 
way. 

The commission, if it allows itself to be persuaded 
that the profits of the anthracite operators have no 
relation to the issue of a wage demand, will be hood- 
winked. Mr. Connell, the operators' member on that 
commission, and Mr. Ferry, the miners' representa- 
tive, are interested parties. They will not be led astray, 
but their attachments and inclinations will perhaps 
cause them to disagree on the admission of the testi- 
mony that Mr. Warriner, a mighty able spokesman 
for the operators, wants to keep out. That puts it up 
to Dr. Thompson, the chairman and public agent on 
the commission, to decide. All that we can say, and 
we believe we know public sentiment in the anthracite 
region reasonably well on matters of this kind, is that 
the commission will be regarded as a monumental 
failure if it does not throw the light on the entire 
anthracite situation and if it decides that the point of 
Mr. Warriner, that the public is not concerned, is well 
taken. 

The operators protest most mightily when any- 
body mentions profits. Why? If they are not 
profiteers, why not open the way to a full and free 
inquiry ? 

The work of the commission, if it is only superficial, 
will intensify discontent amongst 170,000 anthracite 
mine workers, leave unsatisfied the great consuming 

32 



public, do an injustice to the manufacturing interests 
that burn anthracite and add to the general social 
unrest that inquiries of this sort are meant to allay by 
an honest and searching inquisition and a fair decision. 

Coal is a PUBLIC commodity. 

The PUBLIC hopes earnestly for a BROAD and 
DEEP inquiry and not the narrow one that the oper- 
ators so vigorously demand. Dr. Thompson's oppor- 
tunity for PUBLIC SERVICE and JUSTICE is, 
therefore, exceptional. 



Boston Daily Globe, Boston, Mass., July 9, 1920.) 

WHAT IS X? 

"We are not trying our case before the public. The 
public is not interested in these extraneous matters. 
This is a matter for the commission, not a matter for 
the spreading in the newspapers." 

Mr. Warriner, representative of the coal operators, 
is speaking. He is addressing the national commis- 
sion which is trying to find out the truth about the 
coal industry. The representative of the miners had 
proposed that the books of the anthracite coal oper- 
ators be opened and Mr. Warriner had risen to pro- 
test. 

There are certain things which the public knows 
about the coal industry. Most householders have a 
bill file, which is incontrovertible evidence of the way 

33 



in which the price of coal has risen. Those who stoke 
furnace or tend kitchen stoves have an unfavorable 
opinion of the present quality of coal. A good deal 
of it seems to be "fire-proof." 

Schedules of the amounts paid miners, when they 
work full time, have been widely published. 

There is almost, but not quite, enough material to 
enable the average man to figure out whether his coal 
bill is extortionate or not. The trouble is that there 
is an "X," an unknown quantity, in the example. If 
we knew how much the mine owners received over 
and above their expenses, we could form our own con- 
clusions. Without "X" all discussion in regard to 
coal resolves itself into an exhausting and profitless 
lung battle. One man may declare that in his judg- 
ment the mine owners are growing fabulously rich. 
The next speaker may talk about ' narrow seams" 
where mining is costly, and may point out that the 
transportation situation makes the operation of a coal 
mine hazardous to those who own it, because the cars 
to carry the product from the mouth of the pit to 
market are not on hand when wanted. 

No one can discover "X" in this instance merely by 
turning the matter over in his own brain. But "X" 
is in those books, and it could be located with the help 
of expert accountants. Once it became known how 
much the coal-mining business is bringing in to those 
who control it, an intelligent public opinion would 
form on the subject. 

34 



Last fall when the miners quit working, the whole 
country was seriously inconvenienced. For a time the 
prospect of keeping warm during the approaching 
winter looked slim. Both the miners and the operators 
appealed to public sentiment. National and State Gov- 
ernments were called to act in this strike. And no 
one, except those who would not tell, knew what "X" 
was. 

After all, this is not an "extraneous matter'' and 
the public is interested and expects to find out about 
it from the newspapers, which are waiting for the 
information. 

A number of producers in this time of mounting 
living costs have come to the conclusion that it is wise 
to take the public into their confidence, to tell people 
exactly why they are obliged to pay what they do. 
Some concerns which furnish transportation make a 
point of showing by a simple diagram just how much 
of every dollar goes to labor, how much to upkeep and 
extension and how much to those who furnish the 
capital. This policy of frankness has been exceedingly 
helpful in reconciling the patrons of electric cars to 
necessary fare raises. 

There has been plenty of oratory, some of it highly 
misleading and inflammatory, on the subject of the 
H. C. L. We do not need any more fervid utterances, 
but do need the figures. The common schools have 
taught us all to add and to subtract, and many who ob- 

35 



tained their only schooling from the College of Hard 
Knocks are particularly well posted on elementary 
arithmetic. 

All over the country the economic situation is under 
investigation by commissions and committees, some 
clothed with public authority and others mere private 
affairs. Questions are being asked about rents and 
clothing, about sugar and meat. But not one of these 
questions is answered until somebody, with documen- 
tary evidence to prove his statement, appears and tells 
what "X" is in the particular matter under investiga- 
tion. 

Many a rent hearing has been closed by landlord 
and tenant shaking hands simply because the truth 
about taxes, interest and upkeep has proved that the 
contested rent advance is entirely fair. 

Coal, especially in New England, is an essential. 
Most people are fair-minded and are willing to pay 
what they should, but they want to be sure what is 
right. That is why "X" should be known. 

Uncle Dudley. 

(Dispatch, Pittsburgh. Pa., July 9. 1920.) 

IS LAUCK RIGHT OR WRONG? 

If there are Federal records which can refute the 
statistics and related conclusions presented to President 
^Vilson's Anthracite Coal Commission, sitting at Scran- 
Jgn, by W, Jett Lauck, former member of the War 

36 



Labor Board, the contradiction would be an advan- 
tageous public service. If there are even private fig- 
ures which are susceptible of substantiation, that would 
be better than no answer to what amounts to a grave 
charge. The Lauck statistics have been mentioned in 
connection with conclusions that characterize the course 
in some industries as sheer profiteering, and the basic 
industrial structure should not be permitted to rest 
under the slightest suspicion when the popular mind" is 
already irritated by terrific strain. 

In his latest presentment to the commission Mr. 
Lauck makes the flat assertion that there is no shortage 
of any staple commodity — on the contrary, that there 
is an abundance which is concealed by failure to dis- 
tribute. As a sample of how the Lauck figures reach 
the heart of conditions, he states that 276,000,000 pairs 
of shoes are ample for the 20,000,000 families in the 
United States, but that the actual production, notwith- 
standing the cry of shortened output, is 292,000,000 
pairs. Another illustration is his statement that all 
the needs of garment making of every description, so 
far as woolen cloth is concerned, are provided for in 
an output of 4,000,000 square yards — while the pro- 
duction is 7,600,000 square yards. 

Unless the Lauck statistics are disposed of, the effect 
upon the public mind may be to sharpen the existing 
bitterness, already too keen. If a climax to this is 
needed, it is furnished in Mr. Lauck's equally positive 
assertion that "without exception in the production of 

37 



every article of food there is sufficient, if distributed, 
to more than satisfy all human needs." If the former 
Government expert' is wrong, it is clearly the duty of 
someone in authoritative position to point out the error. 
If he is right, there is serious indictment at the door of 
those who should be free from any imputation of vic- 
timizing their fellow-citizens. 



(Hudson Observer, Hoboken, N. J., July 9, 1920.) 

GOUGING AND ROBBING THE LOYAL 

PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY SEEMS 

TO BE THE GENERAL PRACTICE. 

That the anthracite coal industry is controlled by a 
gouging coal monopoly is charged by former Secretary 
Lauck of the War Labor Board, and now consulting- 
economist of the United Mine Workers of America. 
His accusation was laid before the Anthracite Coal 
Commission. Seven different railway systems, he al- 
leges, dominate the industry and have been gathering 
enormous profits. The net income of the principal 
operators increased, he claims, $26,173,860 during 
1916-18, and the Reading made 500 per cent profit 
during that period. These figures are the work of 
experts and are accurate, he insists. 

This is a serious allegation that should be investi- 
gated, and if sustained, the offending profiteers ought 
to be sent to prison for the longest terms the law will 

33 



permit. The figures are submitted to show that the 
operators can readily afford to pay the increased wage 
asked by the miners, but the charge of profiteering also 
deeply concerns every consumer of anthracite coal, the 
cost of which is thrice as high as it was four years ago. 
Immediate action should be taken for the protection of 
the unfortunate victims of the alleged band of thieves 
who control the output of hard coal. Profiteering is 
being- carried on in every branch of industry, and the 
bleeding of the consumers will continue until the lead- 
ing robbers are landed behind jail bars. 

Not only is there profiteering, but coal is being for- 
warded to Europe at exorbitant prices while it is needed 
in this country. Is it any wonder that people are 
aroused when they must pay $11 and $12 a ton for 
coal? In a hearing on the coal question in Washing- 
ton yesterday, A, G. Gutheim, a member of the Car 
Service of the American Railway Association, caused 
an outburst in the crowded chambers of the commission 
when he gave figures for coal exports in the first five 
months of 1918, 1919 and 1920, showing that exports 
had nearly quadrupled in the first five months of this 
year. 

"That's where our coal is going!" exclaimed some- 
one loudly enough to be generally heard. Gutheim 
said the coal exports for the five-month period in 1918 
were 1,466,000 tons; in 1919, 1,706,000 tons, and in the 
first five months of this year, 5,726,000 tons. 

39 



The Hudson Observer has always maintained that 
an embargo should be put on coal and foodstuffs, so 
as not to rob the loyal people of the United States. 

(The Evening Sun. New York, July 10, 1920.) 

QUEER SECRECY ABOUT ANTHRACITE 
FIGURES. 

According to recent news despatches from Scranton. 
the coal operators, as represented at the hearings of 
the mine commission in that city, are showing strong- 
opposition to the admission of exhibits dealing with 
alleged monopolistic control of the anthracite industry 
and with profiteering. They resisted, it is reported, 
even argument on the introduction of seven tables of 
facts and figures purporting to show the costs and 
revenues of the companies engaged in mining and mar- 
keting coal. 

This attitude on the part of men who say they have 
nothing to conceal, and who strongly protest that they 
are operating as economically and selling as cheaply 
as their expenses will allow, must cause general sur- 
prise. If they are not earning undue profits, it is hard 
to see why their safest and wisest course would not be 
to give the public the fullest light. 

Whether they favor full disclosure of the facts or 
not, there seems to be no sound business or moral rea- 
son for not opening the windows wide and letting the 

40 



whole country have a look in at the secrets of the trade. 
Consumers are paying through the nose for such coal 
as they get; they can not get enough, no matter what 
they pay. They want to know why and they have a 
right to know why. 

If the truth will vindicate the operators, the psy- 
chology which seeks concealment is inexplicable. But 
if it will have the contrary effect, the public reasons 
for bringing it out are still more compelling. 



(Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass., July 10, 1920.) 

THE PROFITABLE MYSTERY OF COAL. 

Somewhat more than ordinary significance attaches 
to the controversy that has been going on in Scran- 
ton, Pa., at the hearings this week before the 
Federal Anthracite Coal Commission. Although the 
question nominally before that commission is one of 
wages for the mine workers, the real question, to judge 
from the developments of the last day or two, is 
whether a commission, sitting with Government au- 
thority in the interests of the whole people, shall tell 
the people frankly what it discovers to be the facts 
about the methods of those who control the coal busi- 
ness of the country, or shall allow those facts to be kept 
scrupulously under cover. That there should be any 
real question of this kind is really an astounding thing, 
in view of all the circumstances. A large portion of 

4i 



the public has long been enduring what amounts to 
positive hardship with respect to the prices which they 
have been forced to pay, or with respect to their ability 
to obtain anthracite at any price. For a long time the 
suspicion has appeared to be quite general that those 
who control the supply of coal have used the power 
which has come to them through the wide-ranging or- 
ganization of their trade to make the price to the con- 
sumer far greater than it should be by rights, and the 
exactions and restrictions in connection with deliveries 
unfairly advantageous to the dealers. For years there 
has been a feeling amongst consumers that the price 
of coal has been raised unwarrantedly, with only the 
most inadequate excuses. There has been a feeling 
that even the increases that have seemed plausible, fol- 
lowing increased grants of wages to mine workers, have 
not been apportioned with fairness to the consumers' 
interests; that, indeed, a fraction of a dollar per ton 
of advance in wages to mine workers has been made 
the excuse for three to five times the same amount per 
ton in additional prices to the men and women who use 
the coal. 

Now, at these Scranton hearings, the mine workers, 
seeking to make out a case for better wages, discuss 
the methods of the coal operators in a way that goes 
far to justify all the suspicions which consumers have 
been laboring under for years past. The mine workers 
declare that the anthracite industry "has been organ- 
ized into a huge combination, a monopoly very similar 

42 



in structure to an octopus. Its head and body are a 
very small group of banking interests. Its entwining 
arms are seven railway systems, which control, at their 
extremities, the anthracite mining operations of the 
country." The mine workers declare also that "a well- 
defined process exists by which the profits of the an- 
thracite industry are successfully concealed, while the 
high prices are explained by apparent high costs." 
They declare that transportation costs are inflated and 
written into the cost of anthracite in such a manner as 
to bridge the gap between the actual mining cost and 
the high prices to the consuming public. This financial 
policy, they say, has furnished a basis for extensive 
watering of the capital employed -in the industry; it has 
furnished large returns as interest on bonded indebted- 
ness; but more than anything else, it serves, they de- 
clare, to blind the public in its long-continued effort to 
find the real reason why the price of coal is so high. 

In such assertions as these, seriously put forth at a 
public hearing against those who have in their hands 
the control of a commodity which is regarded as a 
necessity for the entire people of the country, one might 
reasonably expect to find a warrant for the very amplest 
publicity with respect to what the accused factors have 
to say in defense or explanation of their own position. 
"What one does find, however, is this, that the coal 
operators, through their representatives at the hearing, 
have offered strong opposition, not only to the sub- 
mission to the public of the seven specific exhibits of 

43 # 



the mine workers, dealing with the alleged monopolistic 
control and profiteering in the anthracite industry dur- 
ing the last five years, but also opposition to any pub- 
lic argument or discussion of the advisability of the 
presentation of the figures and evidence in connection 
with these exhibits. One finds a persistent effort on 
the part of the mine owners to withhold from the pub- 
lic all figures of every sort which might show the reve- 
nue and income of the coal companies. Of course, 
this attitude goes almost as far as the mine workers' 
allegations to show that the suspicions of the public 
with respect to the propriety and justice of the methods 
of carrying on the coal business in this country are 
more or less well founded. If the coal operators are 
doing business in a fair way. and without impropriety, 
why are they afraid to tell the public about it? Private 
business may require its fair measure of privacy, in 
ordinary circumstances ; but the circumstances now sur- 
rounding the handling of the country's coal supply 
have ceased to be ordinary. They have become in a 
high degree peculiar. They suggest an inference that 
relatively small groups of men have manipulated them- 
selves into such a position that they can virtually take 
the people of the country by the throat and work their 
will upon them by force of the popular need for what 
these groups have it in their power to give or to with- 
hold. " 

This is a far larger matter than a mere affair of 
business. A great idea is at stake, namely : the ques- 

% 44 



tion whether any right of private property in such a 
commodity as coal — a right, by the way, which is de- 
rived from the people — shall be allowed to become the 
basis for exploiting the people and depriving them of 
all power of redress. Business of all kinds has reached 
a high degree of organization in the United States. 
Manifestly the coal business has been highly organized, 
even beyond many other great industries. Like others, 
it is proving that the more highly business in necessary 
commodities is organized, the more certainly does the 
average consumer suffer from the effects of such or- 
ganization. Yet, the very fact that a special commis- 
mission of the Federal Government is now considering 
the coal situation indicates that the popular interest in 
the matter requires to be defined and protected. That 
is surely the theory on the basis of which the Amal- 
gamated Mine Commission is taking testimony. Yet, 
how can it ever give assurance of protecting the public 
interest if it does not insist on the fullest publicity for 
every phase of the situation which it is now called upon 
to consider? "Corruption there must be," said Mr. 
Gladstone, on one occasion, "wherever there is not the 
utmost publicity." The great English statesman was 
speaking particularly of politics when he made that 
statement, but his words apply with equal force to the 
complicated relations of big business and the public. 
The consistent efforts of the coal operators, in their 
public relationships of late, to withhold or to cover the 
facts with respect to the coal business, and the measure 

45 



and manner of their profits from it. are far from reas- 
suring. They could better their position by reasonable 
frankness. So far as their refusal stands in the way 
of a complete understanding of the situation, however. 
it should be brushed aside. There is a larger interest 
at stake than even that of the groups that control the 
coal supply. That larger interest must be safeguarded. 
To this end. it is time that the facts about the coal busi- 
ness were fully disclosed. More than that. even, it is 
high time that business in this country should accus- 
tom itself to the free air of publicity rather than to con- 
tinue in the stifling atmosphere of secrecy and stealth. 
Any attempt to cover or to hide the methods by which 
a necessary commodity is supplied to the people of the 
country is. in itself, ample reason why those methods 
should be fully disclosed. 



«Thf World, New Y<:.rk City, July 11. 1 : - 

COAL PROFITEERS. 

As managing director of the American Wholesale 
Coal Association, it might be assumed that George H. 
Gushing knows what he is talking about when he de- 
clares that there is no shortage of coal and no danger 
of a shortage. But his statement is in direct contra- 
diction of conditions as they are generally reported. 
\Yhen Mayors of cities, public utility companies and 
large industrial concerns are clamoring for immediate 

46 



relief because of the failure of fuel supplies, it is use- 
less to deny that an acute situation exists. 

Mr. Cushing is pleased to hold "governmental agen- 
cies," for which he expresses strong dislike, respon- 
sible for the spreading of alarmist reports, so that 
"those who need coal have been thrown into a panic." 
It is not easy to persuade street railway companies and 
manufacturing plants that they are wallowing in plenty 
when they are able to secure barely enough fuel from 
day to day to maintain operation, to say nothing of 
accumulating reserve supplies. It should be difficult 
to convince them that if only they let matters slide, 
everything will come out all right. That more coal 
would have been mined and moved if the President's 
commission had not undertaken the adjustment of the 
questions of miners' wages is a theory not to be seri- 
ously discussed. To prevent a miners' strike might 
seem a fairly practical way of averting a coal famine. 

The reasons for the actual coal shortage the mine 
operators would probably best explain, if only they 
could be induced to deal frankly with the public. Only 
this week the anthracite operators protested bitterly 
against the suggestion that they throw their books wide 
open for examination to the President's commission. 
By their reluctance they challenged suspicion. For 
both anthracite and bituminous coal, for domestic and 
industrial uses, prices never before ranged so high, 
and costs of production appear to count for very little 
in the fixing of charges to consumers, big and little 

47 



They intend to win, and they are making most of their 
opportunities. 

In the end it comes down to a plain question of 
profiteering on an unprecedented scale, and as usual, 
the public pays and is expected to be grateful that it 
meets no worse treatment at the hands of the coal 
indusry. 



(Bulletin, Providence, Rhode Island, July 12, 1920.) 

PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW. 

It is a matter for gratification that the Anthracite 
Coal Commission, which resumes its hearings at Scran- 
ton today, has decided that those hearings, so far as 
the presentation of certain debatable evidence is in- 
volved, shall be open to the press and public, against 
the demand of the mine operators that the public be 
excluded. The decision may be regarded as a decla- 
ration of public rights as well as a victory for the mine 
workers. 

The disputed point concerned the making public of 
certain evidence presented by W. Jett Lauck, economist 
and statistician for the mine workers. The items, seven 
in number, and known as the "Lauck Exhibits," related 
to the profits of anthracite mining companies, the rela- 
tion of wages to cost of production, profits and prices, 
wholesale and retail anthracite prices from 191 3 to 
1920, freight rates and cost of transportation, operat- 



ing and financial records of anthracite railroads, com- 
bination in the anthracite industry and cost of anthra- 
cite production at the mines in March, 1920. 

The mine workers have desired from the first to have 
the hearings open to the public, but when it came to the 
presentation of details and figures as contained in these 
''exhibits" the operators have strenuously objected, de- 
manding that the commission hear the evidence behind 
closed doors. Mr. Warriner, representative of the op- 
erators, in arguing this point, made this extraordinary 
statement : "We are not trying our case before the pub- 
lic. The public is not interested in these extraneous 
matters. This is a matter for the committee ; not a 
matter for spreading in the newspapers." 

"Extraneous matters," indeed ! No matter is an 
extraneous matter when it is concerned with the heavy 
burden of the cost of living. Whatever Mr. Warri- 
ner may have meant by this remarkable utterance, he 
was extremely unfortunate in his form of expression. 
In the first place, the question of whether the present 
prices of coal are fair or unfair is distinctly not an 
extraneous matter, and to declare that the public is not 
interested in the question is equivalent to an assertion 
that the public has no right to any knowledge con- 
cerning it. 

The production and sale of coal differ from most 
other industries in that it is a virtual monopoly. The 
production of food is something that cannot be monop- 

49 



olized. The opportunities for new competitors are 
always available, but opportunities in coal mining are 
strictly limited. Coal is a natural product in the bene- 
fits of which the whole community is entitled to a rea- 
sonable share. The industry is in the nature of a pub- 
lic utility, and in the financial details of it there is a 
legitimate public interest, as well as a legitimate public 
right of knowledge. To call these details "extraneous 
matters'' is little less than sheer insolence to the mil- 
lions of American consumers. 

The coal industry, for several years, has been a 
mystery, and it is time to let a little light in upon it. 
The anthracite commission is after facts, the public 
wants the facts, and the mine workers are apparently 
desirous of having the" facts revealed. The only party 
at interest in the matter that wanted the facts deli- 
cately whispered behind closed doors was the small 
group of mine operators. If they have been doing 
business on a fair basis and have not been reaping ex- 
orbitant profits, there is no reason under the sun why 
they should be reluctant to have the full facts dis- 
closed. If the conduct of the anthracite business has 
been fair in all respects, the public will be perfectly sat- 
isfied. In any event, the case is being tried before the 
public, whether the operators like it or not. And as 
it is a paramount matter for "spreading in the news- 
papers," it may earnestly be hoped that the newspapers 
will make the most of it. 



5Q 



(Times, Scran ton, Pa., July 15, 1920.) 

PROFITEERING IN HARD COAL SHOULD 
BE PROBED. 

The commission hearing the arguments of the mine 
workers and the anthracite operators on the demands 
of the mine workers missed an opportunity. Its de- 
cision that it did not have jurisdiction to determine 
whether the operators are profiteers closes the door to 
an ascertainment of the exact facts, but the charges 
of the mine workers, supported to some extent by ex- 
tremely interesting figures, remain in the public mind. 

Possibly the commission is right, but it is difficult 
to grasp the commission's explanation for its action in 
excluding evidence that the mine workers sought to 
introduce. The purpose of the testimony of the mine 
workers was, the public will remember, to show that 
the operators could afford to pay the wage increase to 
the mine workers without increasing to the consumer 
the price of coal. 

The commission is not a judicial body, but it is an 
inquisitional institution, or it is nothing worth while, 
and if wages have any relation whatsover to the ability 
of an employer to pay, or a corporation to pay, without 
putting the whole burden of increased pay on the con 
sumer, then the commission, from the viewpoint of no 
small number of consumers, if not almost all con- 
sumers, has erred in ruling out the evidence. 

It requires no profound logic of study to see the re- 

* 5i 



lationship between profits and wages or volume of busi- 
ness and wages ; yet here a commission decides, vir- 
tually, that it is none of its business to find out how 
well able the operators are to absorb a wage advance 
that may be granted. In the soft coal settlement by a 
Presidential commission the operators were made to 
absorb 14 per cent of a wage advance of twice that. 

The anthracite operators are apparently not unwill- 
ing for the mine workers to make public asseverations 
and figures charging ability to pay higher wages, but 
they do object strenuously to anybody, official or semi- 
official, investigating their business to establish in a 
formal and decisive manner whether they have been 
burning the consumer by taking inordinate profits. 
That can be understood. 

On their part it is, admittedly, good strategy for the 
mine workers to fight for the admission of their evi- 
dence. The operators' excuse is that the coal is higher 
to the consumer because the mine worker gets higher 
wages. The latter excepts to being made the "goat" 
by the public and is moved to prove that the operator is 
misleading the consumer through the plea of higher 
wages, but the mine worker must make good, so he asks 
the commission to verify his charges. The commis- 
sion refuses, on the ground that it has not jurisdiction. 

Since the commission thinks or feels that it has not 
jurisdiction, there should be a way to prove whether or 
not the charges of the mine workers are well founded 

52 



The State and the Federal authorities alone have that 
power if it requires legal authority or authority more 
than the commission possesses. There is the Congress. 
*the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney- 
General. The Federal Trade Commission should be 
the logical instrumentality, it would seem, since it is 
trade practices that profiteering in coal would naturally 
come under. The State of Pennsylvania will be apa- 
thetic. The Governor showed that when he announced 
a decision to investigate and then called it off more 
than a year ago. 

It is in the public interest — an interest which the 
commission admits in explaining its decision against 
going into the profiteering feature of the discussion — 
that charges presented in the concrete shape they are 
presented by the mine workers, and with the serious- 
ness that they are presented, shall be sifted to the bot- 
tom by somebody with power. The harder the anthra- 
cite operators protest this, the more determined should 
public sentiment be in insisting upon it. The domestic 
consumer is not the only citizen interested; the manu- 
facturer has a real interest. The increase in the price 
of coal has been steady. That itself proves nothing, 
but when a charge of profiteering is added to that fact 
it changes the complexion of the increase. 



53 



7: _. "i- >: 7 ...- 7 •:.• v: :- :..i -: .._ Z_>-. -: I::- l:."i 
P»_ Jul*- ]%, BOLn " 

OUR ANTHRACITE BARONS. 



t: ; t. :: :: :::i r.:: ev;'-;t z. vtriir: :: £ ilrv 
further :~l The :c-en::r> :":e:: :: :ht i-reie^ra::::: 
: : 777 rt: 75 :: ::::.:;::::; 77 : 7.r:r.:« :::^::i :y ~e:: 
T .auric, statistician far the United Mine W< 
They :■■■:; r~ Li-: :: \z-;. ::•:::::: They zzzz 

:.:-. :'::t z:::--z.:.Z: :: 'z-t :t;:-: ■ 77 :."* :■:; 
able testimony excluded. 

Such demands are extraordinary. The threat of the 
mine workers to withdraw from the inquiry unless 
die operators consent to an honest investigation, and 

i"ei' :: Frtiiien: ~< T ~7r:7 c-eri^illy is i ;u?:ifi.':lt 
::•:::::: :::::: :^:t :.::.:^r:-:;:tf Inlet: :: := acc-ir- 
entiy the only course open to them. The public will 
>::::- t ±7: :t7L5::r. Mtirnirit ::\- z'l'z'.:: .. :t 
:.:::. 5 :■: .::.: ~:: :ht :7tr7::rs irtiUTzt: :■: :7.I:t 

Perhaps . be fonnd in the Lanck fig- 

_ -■ — - - _^- -■- _.— ...• -..-._- 



: : v « ::.: 
:±izr.z '- t 
12 per cei 



:■- 



Mr. Lauck does not vouch for the accuracy of these 
calculations. 

But the arrogance of the anthracite operators in 
imagining themselves the mandarins of industry, ex- 
empt from the processes of inquiry to which others are 
subject, will amaze a great many people; it will not 
astonish that part of the public, however, that remem- 
bers the experience of the commission President Roose- 
velt appointed to arbitrate an anthracite coal strike. 
Divine Rights Baer has long since been gathered to 
his fathers, but his soul is marching on through baronial 
successors. 



(United Mine Workers Journal, July 15, 1920.) 

AFRAID OF PUBLICITY. 

It must have been a terrible shock to those anthracite 
coal operators when the United Mine Workers hinted 
to the public that it was being gouged in the price of 
anthracite. Therefore, it was not strange that these 
operators squirmed and sought to evade the searchlight 
of publicity. Of course, they did not want the public 
to know how much profit the anthracite coal companies 
made — no, indeed. They said this was a subject in 
which the public was not interested, and that there was 
no reason why the subject of profits should be inquired 
into. But the United Mine Workers felt that it was 
a subject in which the public was deeply interested, 

55 



and they proposed that the public should find out all 
about it. 

The anthracite miners are asking for an increase in 
wages and for better working conditions. The coal 
companies say that they cannot pay what the miners 
are asking for. They say, too, that the miners are 
asking for too great an increase — more than they are 
entitled to. The miners went into the hearing before 
the anthracite commission fully prepared with incon- 
trovertible evidence to prove that the anthracite indus- 
try is making, and has for years past made, enormous 
profits, and that the companies could easily pay the 
increase asked by the miners. They were prepared to 
prove that the anthracite industry is owned, controlled 
and manipulated absolutely as a monopoly by a small 
group of banking interests, dominated by J. P. Morgan 
& Co., and the Rockefeller interests. They were ready 
to show to the commission that this monopoly was so 
handled that prices press upward against the consum- 
ing public and downward against the mine w r orkers. 
The miners had a mass of figures and statistics to show 
that the anthracite companies made gigantic profits, 
all of which, by devious routes, flowed into the same 
coffers. 

This was the kind of evidence that tlte operators 
fought to exclude. Heretofore they had successfully 
prevented the public from getting a peep into their 
business and they did not want it to happen this time, 
either. 

56 



If there was nothing to conceal that the public should 
know, why were the coal companies so anxious to 
keep the facts away from the public ? What was there 
about the anthracite business that they fought so hard 
to keep hidden? Surely the truth would hurt, or the 
coal companies would not have objected to having it 
laid before the people. 

The public has the right to know whether the coal 
companies can pay better wages to their employees, 
and whether the companies would be justified in pass- 
ing any part of this increase on to the public when it 
buys anthracite. The best way to determine this ques- 
tion is to ascertain how much profit the coal companies 
make. It is a subject in which the public has a vital 
interest. 

We very much fear that when the anthracite coal 
companies fought against exposing their profits to the 
public they got "in bad" with the American people. 



(Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass., July 16, 1920.) 

WHY SECRECY AS TO COAL PROFITS? 

Not even two or three days' discussion of the sub- 
ject seems to have been sufficient to enable the 
Anthracite Coal Commission, now at Scranton, in 
Pennsylvania, considering the demands presented by 
the United Mine Workers, to see its way clear to 
admitting testimony offered by the miners to prove 

57 



their charges of monopolistic control of the anthracite 
industry and profiteering by the coal operators. In 
other words, the commission thinks it should not be 
the medium of publicity with respect to conditions in 
the handling of anthracite that must inevitably have 
some bearing not only upon the question of wages for 
the mine workers, but also upon the fairness of the 
conditions and prices accompanying the distribution of 
coal to the consumers. It is difficult to see why this 
decision does not amount to a refusal to take up a vital 
part of the very matter which the commission was ap- 
pointed to deal with. It was named by the President 
of the United States to reconcile differences which had 
to do with working conditions and wages. If the com- 
mission now feels that it can deal justly with questions 
of this nature without dealing also with the charges 
of monopolistic control and profiteering on the part of 
the operators, certainly a large body of the public will 
be likely to disagree with it. 

In a country so democratic in theory as the United 
States it is a significant commentary on the work of 
Government authorities that employer and owner rela- 
tionships to the organized business of supplying a 
necessary commodity like coal should be kept somewhat 
covered, while the corresponding relationships of the 
employees are as common as print can make them. 
The punctiliousness of Government commissions and 
bureaus to investigate, and to set forth in minute de- 

58 



.tail all the particulars of the times and conditions 
under which mine workers handle coal, is attested by 
voluminous official reports in fine print, with ample 
tabulations, and lists of wages by the hour, day, week, 
month or year. Even what it costs the miners to live 
and care for their families is not regarded as, by any 
means, outside the scope of inquiry and publicity. But 
when the subject of the owners' and operators' rela- 
tionship to the business is broached, when there is any 
curiosify anywhere as to how much the owners and 
operators are receiving by the hour, day, week, month 
or year, per ton of coal mined and delivered to the 
consumers, the details are not so clear. In the present 
instance it seems to be regarded as wholly outside the 
question to consider whether or not the men who abso- 
lutely control the coal which the country must have, 
and who are situated so that they may deal it out vir- 
tually on their own terms, are getting a fair return for 
what they are putting into the proposition, or are get- 
ting more or less than what is fair. From the point of 
view of the public, which is to pay in any event, there 
is a growing tendency to question why there should be 
such ready publicity for all that the individual mine 
worker is getting out of his connection with coal, and 
yet such official toleration of secrecy as to what the 
owners and operators are getting. 

Few men are willing to fight for secrecy except those 
who have something to conceal. Shall a country which 

59 



is at this moment paying a stupendous price for its 
fuel — an anthracite price, by the way, which has been 
in some regions increased noticeably at just the time of 
the year when natural conditions and precedent would 
seem to have invited a reduction — accept the notion that 
coal operators are privileged, and may withhold from 
the public facts which would appear to have a bearing, 
upon the justice of the wages paid to their mine 
workers or that of the prices charged to those who use 
their coal? Or shall its Government reports begin to 
treat operators and mine workers alike, man for man. 
giving the same publicity to the profits of one as to the 
profits of the other? The public must pay both, and 
the public should know both. 



(The Nation, New York City, July 17. 1920.) 

We do not blame the representatives of the anthra- 
cite operators for entering ''vigorous objection" to the 
presentation before the Anthracite Coal Commission 
of Mr. W. Jett Lauck's material on profiteering. Seven 
railways, said Mr. Lauck, under the general control of 
the Morgan interests, dominate the anthracite industry, 
and the profits resulting from the production and sale 
of coal by their subsidiary companies "have appeared 
almost altogether in the dividends, reserves, and bond 
interest of the seven anthracite railways" ; thus en- 
abling the subsidiary coal companies to present a bal- 

60 



ance sheet innocent of profits. Railway men who 
demand a- $6 minimum daily wage are not, therefore, 
according to Mr. Lauck, fastening a suffocating burden 
upon the coal industry, as has frequently been claimed. 
They are asking only a small margin of a vast and in- 
creasing profit which only by a feat of bookkeeping 
fails to appear on the ledger of the coal operators. 
Air. Lauck said : 

"A survey of the anthracite industry shows an in- 
crease in net profits of the principal operators for the 
period 1916-1918 over 1912-1914 of nearly 90 per cent 
as compared with an increase in production of less 
than 12 per cent. * * * The immense profits re- 
ported by three of the principal mining companies for 
1916-1918 are exclusive of the earnings of their sepa- 
rately incorporated selling departments, and represent 
only a fraction of their actual profits. Since its or- 
ganization, in 1910, the Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Com- 
pany, for example, has paid annual dividends at an aver- 
age rate of nearly 20 per cent. The Delaware, Lacka- 
wanna and Western Coal Company, since its organiza- 
tion, in 1909, has paid 300 per cent in dividends, and 
has accumulated a surplus of $5,973,595, or more than 
90 per cent on its capital stock outstanding. * * * 
The actual increase in profits during the war years of 
the coal companies which market their own product is 
indicated by the income account of the Philadelphia and 
Reading Company. This company, which had no sell- 
ing device for concealing its profits, increased its pro- 
duction only 11 per cent during the war years, but in- 
creased its profits nearly 500 per cent and its profits 
per ton of output 435 per cent." 

61 



These examples would seem to indicate moderation 
on the part of the miners, but they indicate, also, good 
sense on the part of the operators in attempting to pre- 
vent the public from learning the exact figures of their 
fat years. 



(Times, Scranton, Pa., July 17, 1920.) 

OPERATORS, COWS, PIGS AND MINE 
WORKERS. 

That anthracite operators regard $3.34 per day as a 
sufficient wage to enable a mine worker to support him- 
self and family on an American standard of living 
was the feature development of today's session of the 
Anthracite Coal Commission. — News item from yester- 
day s Times reporting the progress of the arbitration 
of the demands of the mine workers before the com- 
mission headed by Dr. Thompson, president of Ohio 
State College. 

Coming on top of the statement of a few days ago 
by Mr. Warriner, another hard coal operator, that the 
mine workers are not taking advantage of their oppor- 
tunities to keep chickens and cows and to raise pigs, 
the averment that $3.34 a day is ample for a skilled 
mine worker, and plenty on which to sustain a family 
(regardless of whether there are man and wife in the 
family, or man, wife and from two to ten children), 
is very likely to have a nauseating effect upon mine 

62 



workers and public alike, unless the sense of humor at 
the amazing attitude of the operators, struggling with 
the emotion of impatience and disgust, triumphs, in 
which instance it is possible to enjoy the unconscious 
humor of the gentlemen who urge a pig in the kitchen 
and a cow in the parlor as family pets and lifebelts for 
the mine worker and his brood. 

The statement that $3.34 represents enough of a 
wage is presented by Mr. Huber, the general manager 
of one of the biggest and best-paying-dividend mining 
corporations of the region. It is no wonder that he 
was promptly challenged by Mr. Philip Murray, Inter- 
national Vice-President of the United Mine Workers 
of America. 

The testimony anent this particular phase of the 
demands of the mine workers could hardly be more 
interesting or important for showing the state of mind 
of the largest employers of labor in the hard coal fields, 
in a peculiarly entrenched position as such, toward their 
employees. It is important, also, for the fact that the 
public is taxed every time there is a wage advance and 
has, in fact, been paying $1 a ton more since the first 
of May, though the operators have not had to pay a 
cent of higher wages to their mine workers and do not 
know, until the commission decides the issue, how 
much of an increase will have to be given. 

We quote from the news columns further the inter- 
esting colloquy of yesterday ; it is worth while : 

63 



"After bringing out the point that, according to the 
operators' own figures. S3. 34 is the minimum wage for 
common labor in the anthracite field. Mr. Murray 
asked Mr: Huber if he regarded that as a sufficient 
wage to enable a man to live and support his family." 

"According to what standard of living?" asked Mr. 
Huber. 

"'According to the ordinary American standard of 
living — a standard of decency and reasonable comfort," 
answered Mr. Murray. "Do you believe a mine worker 
can live and support a family according to that standard 
on a daily wage of $3.34?" 

"I not only believe it." answered Mr. Huber. "I know 
it. I've seen him do it." 

"Now, Mr. Huber," continued Mr. Murray, "at your 
maximum rate of $3.61 for common labor, would it be 
necessary for a miner to work 418 eight-hour days a 
year to make the 81,509 a year which you have told 
this commission is the average annual earnings of 
anthracite workers?" 

"That is a matter for mathematical calculation," 
parried Mr. Huber. 

"Isn't it also a fact," pressed Mr. Murray, "that your 
pumpmen, at the wage rate now prevailing, would have 
to work approximately 550 eight-hour days in a year to 
make the annual earnings you have shown in your 
exhibit for that class of labor?" 

"There's no conclusion here that pumpmen work an 
eight-hour day," answered Mr. Huber. "and our ex- 
hibit shows annual earnings without reference to the 
number of hours or days worked." 

"Exactly." said Mr. Murray, "and that leads to the 
request that I now make of the commission, which is 
that the operators be required to support their state- 

64 



ment as to earnings of mine workers with the figures 
showing the number of hours each man or class of 
labor worked during the year 1919 in order to make the 
amount of money shown in this table." 

Later Mr. Lauck called attention to the fact that at 
$3.34 per day the mine worker would earn slightly 
more than $900 for the operators' full year of 273 days, 
while the National Industrial Conference Board, an 
organization of employers, had published a survey 
showing that the food requirements alone for families 
of five in Massachusetts mill towns totaled over $700. 

The operators who make these statements rank in 
importance next only to the presidents of the big an- 
thracite mining and coal-carrying roads. They are 
really great men in their knowledge of the mining 
business. As advocates, in placing the case of the oper- 
ators before the commission and the public they cer- 
tainly cannot be accused of fostering public approval 
and support for their side. The $3.34-a-day-wage 
asseveration is a case in point ; the declaration of Mr.. 
Warriner that it is none of the consuming public's busi- 
ness what tke profits of the operators are, made as an 
aigument against admission of evidence by the mine 
workers to show that the operators can pay higher 
wages without increasing the price of coal, and the 
more recent contention that the mine workers should go 
in for cows and pigs in the backyards to help sustain 
them and their families, show it. 

65 



It is no disgrace to keep a cow or a pig, but cows 
and pigs can only be kept, with regard for the health 
and comfort of people that own them and their neigh- 
bors, in settled communities, under unusual conditions. 
The fact that cows and pigs used to have the run of 
the backyard or the kitchen once upon a time is no 
basis for the argument presented in this day and time. 
The hard coal operators know what the environment 
around a home was generally in such circumstances. 
That day has gone with the growth of population and 
other, we say it frankly, improved and more whole- 
some ideas making for better standards in which to 
rear families in the hard coal field. 

The mine workers of the anthracite region, we fear, 
are viewed too much by some of these operators, as 
peasants in the kingdom of a feudal prince, to be satis- 
fied they are alive, that they have the favor of a job, 
and now and then the smile of the prince. 

Cows and pigs and a place to keep them, provided 
they are furnished by the operators, would be a dif- 
ferent proposition. Cows and pigs and the feeding of 
them, also, run into money in these days. A month's 
pay at $3.34 a day would buy an ordinary cow, but 
what would be lived on in the meantime? Of course, 
the cow would have to be curried, but the mine worker's 
wife, when she did not happen to be nursing the baby, 
might find a half hour to give it the daily currying it 
ought to have to produce good, rich milk. The opera- 

66 



tors might be able to buy the cow cheaper if they 
pooled their interests and purchased in herds and then 
distributed them to their mine workers. 

What kind of meat do some of these surviving hard 
coal operators live on ? We thought that the day when 
operators thought in the terms of some of those in 
attendance at the hearing before Dr. Thompson's com- 
mission had passed out with the progress of the times, 
dating from the day that a strike commission in 1902 
proved that the hard coal mines were not the "divine- 
right" property of Pharisees in American industrial 
corporations. The American captain of industry will 
never promote more satisfactory relations with labor 
by such arguments as are presented by the hard coal 
operators. 



(Bulletin, Philadelphia, July 20, 1920.) 

THE COST OF COAL. 

W. Jett Lauck, consulting economist and statistician 
for the United Mine Workers in their case before the 
Anthracite Commission, offers comparative analysis 
of the cost of anthracite in the city of Washington, 
averaging all sizes, in 19 14 and 1920, which ought to 
provoke further inquiry, and if it shall go unchal- 
lenged, suggest an avenue»of relief for the consumer. 

According to these figures, the cost of labor in min- 
ing coal has risen 75 per cent, in the six-year period, 



67 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
lllllll III Mil III I II 



027 292 893 9 



